Skip to main content

About your Search

20120926
20121004
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
in a constitutional amendment to make sure there is not court approved a marriage. we have stuart campbell who fought against the amendment and tammy fitzgerald, you helped to pass it? why did you want in this? >> is important for the people of north carolina to define more and -- marriage. not the courts. john: you thoughtthe judge would decide? >> it has happened in six days. the people of iowa never thought that what happened. massachusetts, connecticut predefined marriage. the attack has been through the judicial system. john: what do you mean the attack? that expands. it is audacious for society to think they can define it. so for the government to impose the cotte artificial definition is interference. >> we are trying to join an institution but there are 1100 benefits over married couples? [laughter] are you against gays? >> this is not the anti-gay movement. >> it is about protecting the definition of marriage of the man and woman. government has no right to define. john: a people say i consider myself married? >> they do that already. there was the parade of horribles after the amendment was
that would trigger a global meltdown how? >> well, simple, because this is the campbell's nose under the proverbial tent. an a tax on tax and a tax on preeting-- once you get that point it's like crack and these guys, this is what they're hoping for to get a sliver going and roll and roll and roll with people and what you have, you have inefficient money going into the government. excuse me, efficient money going into the government. to quote gary b smith and it's a disaster. >> i don't think there's a lot of reason to speculate about the tax, it's not going to happen. this is a bunch of egg heads at the bowels of u.n., to propose that country voluntarily create a tax on themselves. and surprised to take toby, a very smart guy, no chance of it. we've heard threats of these kinds of taxes before. nothing ever comes in mind. this is just more-- >> i will give you that, it's definitely from the bowels. >> brenda: okay. well, gary b, you know, the union has been around for decades wasting or spending billions of dollars. this is not totally out of context. this could happen, couldn't it?
the other names, or does that make you hungry? tyson foods, conagra, campbell's soup. a lot of up arrows today for this group in particular, a lot of winners on a day where we've had a lot of red on the screen. back to you. cheryl: nicole, we'll see you very soon. well, consumer stocks are among today's biggest s&p winners. brian peery says the consumer is not dead and now is the time to buy into equities, portfolio manager at hennessey funds and joins me now in a fox business exclusive. it's nice to see you. i always like to talk about hennessey funds, but i do want to talk to you about the consumer. how sure can we be that the consumer is really going to hold us up for the rest of the year, spend more money? >> well, you know, i think, cheryl, i think everybody is -- that's the big question. and, you know, i think that there's been a sentiment out there for some time now that the consumer's really kind of shifting their value proposition, and what they're really doing is trying to stretch that discretionary income that they have to maximize their, you know, their commodity goods. and i
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)